1

image-worship, was deposed from the patriarchal throne and his high rank was conferred upon Photius, a layman, the most learned man of the period. Two parties formed then in the Byzantine Empire; one sided with Photius, the other with Ignatius, who refused to give up his title voluntarily. They continually anathematized each other and their heated disputes finally forced Michael III to convoke a council. Pope Nicholas I, who sided with Ignatius, was also invited to attend, but he sent only his legates. The latter, under the influence of bribes and threats and against the wish of the Pope, confirmed the deposition of Ignatius and the election of Photius as patriarch of Constantinople. In opposition to this decision Pope Nicholas convoked a council in Rome which anathematized Photius and reinstated Ignatius. Michael paid no attention to the proclamation of this Roman council, and in a sharp note to the Pope stated that the church of Constantinople repudiated his claims to the leadership of the universal church. This incident came at the time of the conversion of the Bulgarian king, Boris, to Christianity, in which the interests of Constantinople and Rome clashed seriously, as we have pointed out elsewhere. In the year 867 (the year of Michael's death) another council was convoked at Constantinople which condemned and anathematized the Pope for his heretical doctrine, in adding the filioque to the Christian creed, and also for his illegal intervention in the affairs of the church of Constantinople. The Pope and the Patriarch in their turn anathematized each other, and thus occurred the split. in the church. With the death of Michael III the state of affairs changed. The new Emperor, Basil I, began his reign by deposing Photius and reinstating Ignatius.

III. LITERATURE, LEARNING, AND ART DURING THE ICONOCLASTIC

PERIOD

A movement so profound, complex, and intense as iconoclasm was bound to arouse wide literary activity. Unfortuntely, however, the literature of the iconoclasts was destroyed almost completely by the triumphant image-worshipers, and is known to us only by scanty fragments preserved in the works of the opponents of iconoclasm, who cited them for the purpose of refutation. It may be said,

then, that practically all the surviving literary works of the iconoclastic period represent the point of view of only one side.

137

Like the preceding period of the Heraclian dynasty, the iconoclastic epoch had no historians, though the chroniclers of this period have left numerous works, helpful to a correct understanding of Byzantine chronography and its sources and also highly valuable for the study of the iconoclastic period itself. George Syncellus,1 who died in the early part of the ninth century, left a Chronography from the creation of the universe to the reign of Diocletian (284 A.D.), which he wrote during his stay in one of the monasteries. While this work does not throw any light on the iconoclastic period, for the author did not deal with events contemporary with his life, it is of considerable value for the elucidation of some problems of earlier Greek chronography, whose works were used by George Syncellus as sources for his chronicle.

At the instance of George Syncellus his chronicle was continued in the early part of the same century by his friend, Theophanes the Confessor, whose influence as a chronicler upon the literature of subsequent periods was very great. As a vehement enemy of the iconoclasts in the second period of the movement, he was submitted by Leo V the Armenian to an inquest, and after being confined in jail for a certain time, was exiled to one of the islands of the Aegean Sea, where he died in the year 817. The chronicle of Theophanes deals with the period from the reign of Diocletian, where George Syncellus left off his record of events, up to the fall of Emperor Michael I Rangabé, in the year 813. In spite of the clearly expressed eastern-orthodox point of view, very apparent in his analysis of historical events and personalities, and in spite of the biased nature of the account, the work of Theophanes is very valuable, not only because of its rich material from earlier sources, some of which have not come down to us, but also because, as a contemporary source on the iconoclastic movement, it devotes more space to it than was usual with other Byzantine chroniclers. The work of Theophanes was the favorite source of subsequent chroniclers. The Latin translation of his chronicle, rendered by the papal 137 Syncellus: a high ecclesiastical honor (title) in the Byzantine Empire. Literally, it means "cell-mate."

3

ய

librarian, Anastasius, in the second half of the ninth century, was of the same value to the medieval chronography of the West as the Greek original was for the East.

Another significant writer of this period was Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople in the early part of the ninth century. For his bold opposition to iconoclasm in the time of Leo V the Armenian he was deposed and exiled. In his theological works, of which some are still unpublished, Nicephorus defends with a remarkable power based on deep conviction the correctness of the iconodulist views. He refutes the arguments of the iconoclasts chiefly in his three "Refutations of the Ignorant and Godless Nonsense of the Impious Mammon [the name he applied to Constantine V] against the Salutary Incarnation of the Word of God."138 From the historical point of view, his Brief History, which narrates events from the death of Emperor Maurice in the year 602 until the year 769, is of considerable value. In spite of the fact that in attempting to make this work a popular account suitable for a wider circle of readers, Nicephorus gave it a somewhat edifying character, it still remains a source of importance, since it contains many interesting facts regarding the political and church history of the period. The very striking similarity of this History and the work of Theophanes may be explained by the fact that both used some one common source. Finally, George the Monk (Monachus) Hamartolus, also a convinced enemy of the iconoclasts, left us a universal chronicle from Adam to the death of Emperor Theophilus in 842 A.D., in other words, until the final victory of image-worship. This work is of much value for the cultural history of the period because it contains many discussions of problems which preoccupied the Byzantine monastics of that period, namely, the problem of the nature of monasticism itself, of the spread of iconoclastic heresy, and of the Saracen faith. It also gives a vivid picture of the aspirations and tastes of the Byzantine monasteries of the ninth century. The chronicle of Hamartolus formed the basis for later Byzantine arrangements of universal history, and has exerted enormous influence upon the early pages of Slavonic literatures, particularly the Russian. Suffice it to say that the beginning of Russian chronicles 138 See Migne, Patr. Gr., 100, cols. 205 ff.

is very closely connected with the work of Hamartolus. If we disregard a certain anonymous writer on Emperor Leo V the Armenian, Hamartolus is the only contemporary chronicler of the period from 813 to 842. In dealing with this period from his narrow monastic point of view, he used mostly oral accounts of his contemporaries and his personal observations. The manuscript tradition of Hamartolus' work, which has been changed and enlarged many times in later centuries, has come down to us in such a complicated and entangled form that the question of his authentic original text forms one of the most difficult problems of Byzantine philology. It was only in the early part of the twentieth century that a critical edition of the Greek text of Hamartolus was published.139 A few years ago there appeared a critical edition of the old Slavo-Russian translation of the chronicle of Hamartolus, supplemented by the Greek text of the continuation of this chronicle which formed the basis of the Slavonic translation.140

معاني

We know that the iconoclastic literature was almost completely destroyed by the triumphant image-worshipers, yet part of the detailed acts of the iconoclastic council of the year 754 have survived in the acts of the seventh Ecumenical Council. Fragments of an extensive work on image-worship, which appeared under the name of Constantine V Copronymus, have been preserved in the three "Refutations" of Patriarch Nicephorus, mentioned before. Leo V had ordered the compilation of a general work favorable to iconoclasm and based on the Bible and the church fathers. A similar project had been proposed also at the iconoclastic council of the year 754, but neither of these works has survived. A number of iconoclastic poems have been preserved in the works of Theodore of Studion. The seventh Ecumenical Council enacted that all iconoclastic literature should be destroyed, and in the ninth canon proclaimed at this Council we read the following: "All the childish plays, the raging mockeries and false writings directed against the honored icons must be presented to the episcopate of Constantinople and there added to all other books of heretics. Anyone found guilty of hiding these works, 139 Georgius Monachus, Chronikon (ed. De Boor), 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1904). 140 V. M. Istrin, The Chronicle of George Hamartolus in Its Old Sloveno-Russian Version. 2 vols. (Petrograd, 1920-22). In Russian.

if bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, will be deposed; if monk or layman, will be excommunicated."141

An enormous amount of literary material dealing with the defense of image-worship and highly important in its influence upon writings of later periods has been left by a man who spent all his life in a province which no longer formed part of the Empire. His name is John Damascene, a native of Syria, which was then under Arabian domination. He was minister of the Caliph in Damascus and died about 750 A.D. in the famous Palestinian laura of St. Sabas.

John has left many works in the fields of dogmatics, polemics, history, philosophy, oratory, and poetry. His principal work is The Source of Knowledge, the third part of which, entitled "An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith," was an attempt at a systematic presentation of the main foundations of the Christian faith and Christian dogmatics. Through this exposition John placed in the hands of the image-worshipers a powerful weapon for their struggle with their opponents, a weapon they had lacked in the early part of the iconoclastic movement. Later, in the thirteenth century, this work was used by the famous father of the Western church, Thomas Aquinas, as a model for his Summa Theologiae. Among the polemic works of John Damascene we must point out three treatises "against those who depreciate holy images," where the author firmly and boldly defends image-worship. In ecclesiastical literature John is particularly famous for his church hymns, which are somewhat more intricate in form than the church songs of Romanus the HymnWriter (Melode), although by the depth of poetical force and profound doctrine they are the best among the hymns of the Christian church. John was also the author of many beautiful canons for festivals of the Lord, on the Holy Virgin, or in honor of prophets, apostles, and martyrs. Especially solemn is his Easter service, whose chants express the deep joy of believers because of Christ's victory over death and hell. Under John's pen church hymns have reached the highest point of their development and beauty. After him there were no remarkable writers in the field of Byzantine church poetry.

The name of John Damascene is also closely connected with the 141 Mansi, XIII, col. 430.